Leica M8 - is the lens mount THAT expensive?

nathantw wrote:
obsolete Kodachrome 64 film. It was taken in London and it's a picture
of the Palace of Westminster (I think that's what it's called) with Big
Ben way in the background. If you look closely enough you'll see that
there are shields up on top of Big Ben. Now, if the lens were so lousy
then I wouldn't be able to see those.

Forgot to mention that it was taken in the dead of night.

Chris Loffredo wrote:
Am I endorsing the M8?

I guess not.

I'm hoping that in a couple of years it might be available used at a
decent price.
As I said befo It seems to be the least of all evils for going
digital (at least for me). Actually getting it is another matter.

I actually agree with you with this point. Digital seems like a great
tool to try out certain images. I found some slides in my collection
that had both 35mm and medium format. They were of the exact same thing
taken at pretty much the exact same time. I was actually trying out the
circular polarizer I had gotten with the Hasselblad. Anyway, the
picture was pretty good, but apparently I thought the picture was
REALLY GOOD that day so I shot...and shot...and shot. I think it was a
couple rolls of film. If I had digital at the time I could have done my
tests and deleted the photos when I was done.

Unfortunately for me a digital back for a Hasselblad is at least
$10,000. The Nikon is a little easier coming in at less than $1000.

Tony Polson wrote:
Why on earth would you order such a camera before there are even full
reviews of it out?

Because I know two people who tested final pre-production models. As
a result, I have already handled the M8 and have seen exactly what it
can do.

Interesting and quite frankly, lucky. Not many people get a chance to
try out equipment that hasn't hit the market yet. Truthfully when I
first heard about the camera a couple months ago I thought for sure it
would cost about $7000 - $10000 because it was a Leica.

"nathantw" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris Loffredo wrote:
I don't happen to like cameras which are 100% battery-dependent. If
that's not an issue, the Hexar sounds nice.
Personally, I don't really need to spare my thumb.

What shutter speeds can you use with a Leica M8 when the battery fails?

So, what's your issue with Leica? Envy? Guy with a Leica run off with
your wife?

I don't know why people, especially you, think I have an issue with
Leica. I wanted one for decades. I still may buy one in the future just
because I'm a film guy. I just think that $5645 for a 10MP digital
rangefinder camera that will basically be obsolete in a few years is
just silly. I think the Leica MP and the M7 are ones that are worth the
money, but the M8 I have reservations. The M8 is 10MP and Leica also
introduced "lesser" cameras that are also 10MP that are much, much
cheaper than $5645.


I lusted after the forthcoming Zeiss 50/1.4 lens in M42 mount--until I saw
comparison photos between the Zeiss equivalent lens in Nikon mount, vs.
several other Nikon lenses.

The photos showed clearly that the Nikon lenses, some of which were 20 years
old, actually had better bokeh and more resolution than did the Cosina-Zeiss
lens.

I don't know WHY I assumed that Zeiss made a better product, without
actually looking at the test shots myself. I suspect that many Leicaphiles
also automatically assume that their results are easily discernable as
superior over those taken by other brands.

I'd like to see actual photos of the same scene, taken by Leica and another
brand as comparison, to see just how much "better" the Leica shots are.

The Zeiss vs Nikon comparison shots were a real eye-opener for me.

Tony Polson wrote:

snip

You mentioned the Noctilux. 50mm f/1.0. The laws of physics do not
allow such a lens to be made without significant vignetting. So you
are criticising Leica for being unable to overturn the laws of
physics? g


Laws of physics? Its perfectly feasible to design a 50mm f/1.0 lens
with no vignetting at all. The vignetting in the Noctilux is done
intentionally to keep the price/size/weight reasonable.

Brian

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
"Kinon O'cann" Yes.it's.me.Bowser wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Kinon O'Cann" wrote:

FWIW, I did own a Leica a long time ago, and they are amazing
cameras...

I did, too. An early Leicaflex, actually. Nicely made, but, strange
thing, it produced postage stamp sized negatives that produce only
inferior prints compared to, say, an Autocord or Yashicamat.

Right.....

And comparing my Yashica Mat 124 to a 4x5 cam is just as valid.

Not really. MF is still largely handholdable. LF is a very different game.

I know, I was being sarcastic.


The problem is quality at target print size. If you bust you butt, 35mm
can make a nice 8x10. But I'd like to make 11x14s to 13x19s.

I just don't get either (a) paying Leica prices when either MF would be
worlds better or...

Different tools for different uses. Taking a Leica pretty much gaurantees a
working camera unless you kick the crap out of it. You don't get paying
Leica prices, so you don't buy it. Others do, because they can make a living
with it or are just plain wealthy and enjoy the snob appeal. Common for lots
of stuff.


The Leica can go places and do things that MF sometimes can't.

(b) paying Leica prices for Leica quality when you are shooting (possibly
pushed) Tri-X. What 35mm has over MF is fast lenses when you are willing
to accept lousy image quality as the cost for getting an image at all.

Uh, I got some truly excellent images using an M3 and Tri-X.


Which means the places 35mm makes sense, Leica quality makes no sense.

Depends on the place. For street shooting, it's the best. (in my
ever-so-humble opinion, of course)


(Of course, those have all been subsumed by 8 or 12.7 MP digital, which
does way better than 35mm Tri-X.)

Agreed that MF will produce a better image, but with MF, particularly a
TLR, you're very limited with lens selection, and handling is dog slow.

So get a Mamiya 7. But I don't see a TLR as being much slower than a
rangefinder; if you need speed a modern SLR leaves both in the dust. For
street shooting, zone focusing works as well with a TLR as a rangefinder
(and has stealth advantages). It's a pity the Rolleiwides are so
ridiculously expensive, though. 50mm is a nice focal length on 6x6.

I owned a Mamiya 7II, and sold it due to frustration. It's essentially a
wide angle camera; the longest useable lens is equal to a 70mm in 35 terms.
In order to change lenses, you have to perform a three step process. Framing
is, well, challenging. Focusing can be downright impossible with the 150mm
lens. You need an accessory finder for wider lenses, which is a huge pain,
since it covers your hot shoe. The Mamiya 7 series is a flawed jewel, but if
you can live within it's limitations, it's capable of producing amazing
images. But you know all that.


David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"nathantw" wrote in message
oups.com...

David J. Littleboy wrote:
The problem is quality at target print size. If you bust you butt, 35mm
can
make a nice 8x10. But I'd like to make 11x14s to 13x19s.

I've actually printed some fantastic 16x20 Ilfochrome prints that are
pretty darn sharp. Then again they were taken with a lowly Nikon N8008
and "one of the worse" 24mm Nikkors ever made (see another thread) on
obsolete Kodachrome 64 film. It was taken in London and it's a picture
of the Palace of Westminster (I think that's what it's called) with Big
Ben way in the background. If you look closely enough you'll see that
there are shields up on top of Big Ben. Now, if the lens were so lousy
then I wouldn't be able to see those.

The Leica can go places and do things that MF sometimes can't.

(b) paying Leica prices for Leica quality when you are shooting (possibly
pushed) Tri-X. What 35mm has over MF is fast lenses when you are willing
to
accept lousy image quality as the cost for getting an image at all.

However, being the devils advocate that I am, isn't an image what it's
all about no matter what the quality? One of the most memorable photos
ever taken was blurry because of a low shutter speed. However, it's
memorable because the image is there. The picture was of a soldier
storming a beach on D-Day during WW2 taken by Robert Capa.
http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions...679101_zm.html

Hmm...

And Capa shot with what?

FWIW, most of Capa's shots from that day were lost in a lab accident.

"nathantw" wrote:

Interesting and quite frankly, lucky.


It has nothing to do with luck, it is all about making and maintaining
relationships with the right people, which involves a lot of effort.

Last year I announced the Canon EOS 5D to this newsgroup almost two
weeks before its official launch, only to be met with howls of
derision and denial, including from one person who had set up an
"expert" DSLR website that praised Canon to the heavens and denigrated
every other brand. He was adamant that I could not possibly be
telling the truth.

I read these postings with great amusement, as on my desk, between my
monitor and printer, was a pre-production Canon EOS 5D body that I had
been given to test a week earlier. ;-)

"Scott W" wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:
The hilarious thing here is that if the Leica lenses really are as good as
the hagiographers would have us believe, they're going to be an incredible
disaster on the M8, since they're not including a low-pass filter.
The answer is pretty clear and to me it shows a degree of sleaze on
Leica's part, I believe that they tried using a low pass filter but
could not match the 5D for sharpness with on in place. I think the
marketing people at Leica told the engineers that the test photos had
to look extremely sharp and to do whatever it took to get there, even
if it meant making a camera that is going to be prone to problems.

No camera without a low pass filter has been well received by
photographers, my bet is this one won't either.


Then your ignorance knows no bounds (but we knew that already).

The Leica Digital Modul-R, which converts a Leica R8 or R9 body into a
10 MP DSLR, has been extremely well received by photographers, to the
point where, almost two years after it was first announced, it is
still only available to order.

Like the M8, the DMR has no low pass filter, and it is quite clear
from the excellence of the results that the DMR has no need of one.

From my (very limited) experience of the M8, it doesn't appear to need
one either.

Gordon Moat wrote:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html

Ciao!


Before posting a link to Erwin Puts' web site, it might have been
relevant to mention that Erwin Puts was retained by Leica as a
consultant and reviewer for some years but had his contract terminated
by Leica earlier this year.

It is also relevant to mention that Erwin Puts has an extremely strong
dislike of digital photography.

"Put" these two factors together and you will realise why Mr Puts is
now so negative where Leica digital cameras are concerned.

;-)